Wednesday, February 20, 2013

When a smart young man receives a big salary it is a good thing for the race. He can marry and transmit his smartness to posterity. When a young woman receives a big salary it means disaster for the race, and the wiser, handsomer, more efficient the woman is to-day the more likely she is to have a salary instead of a husband. You couldn’t run a chicken farm on those principles. Suppose you took all the best hens and set them aside to go to college or run a feather factory for the other hens. It’s a tragedy!

It has taken the race millions of years to produce the high salaried women of to-day, and now those qualities are allowed to perish. The spark carried through the centuries is snuffed out by a salary!

I'm currently working but I'm also looking for a new job and can confirm the insane requirements for "entry level jobs", which often are 2-5 years of experience and a degree of some sort. This should also be filed under "we don't need more people in college", no pun intended.

Hella funny, when one clicks on the link for the " filing clerks now have bachelor's degrees" a pop up add for diamond engagement rings comes up. The grrrrrls, not only can file with their $100,000 debt, they also fantasize some 'nice guy' is going to show up and drop a couple $K on her useless, indebted ass, because she is such a special snowflake.

Looking around the world, it appears the civilizations with the most longevity are those with the following qualities...

1) live in houses made of grass and sticks2) men do little except hunt and rape the women3) no written language4) no money5) no possessions6) no knowledge of wheel7) no clothes8) no laws against screwing kids9) lots of superstitions10) no tooth decay11) no domestic animals12) ability to make fire

I have a buddy who's dating a girl who just graduated with a degree in 'creative writing'. Job prospects are what you'd expect. So of course her solution is to drop some six-figure amount on grad school in NYC to become a publisher.

He told her flat out that if she did that, there was absolutely no chance they would ever get married. So far she's seen sense and hasn't brought it up again.

If evolution works out, in a few generations the selection will keep males mostly the same, but the females will be stupid and pretty.

Even worse, consider China (and India) where they are selecting men over women - yet are pushing the women into working at the same time. I'm not sure about Japan, but it, like Europe, is committing demographic suicide anyway.

In war (consider Israel), if there is only one son, it becomes a much larger tragedy if he is killed. If you have many sons, it would be a tragedy but your line will survive. So you cannot even conduct war the same way.

So today, even if only the man has the salary, the one or two children aren't going to be enough, and they will be even more spoiled. Both parents working makes it work.

The pill and sexual revolution that came in its wake did not give control over fertility - it is merely a negative. It does not allow the big family when the Woman is 40+. It doesn't prevent STDs which render (mostly women) sterile. And it isn't being applied to those at the bottom. Even though we encourage abortion.

"Family" was redefined first - and by Christians when their traditions all taught them this was a serious error. Do not wonder at the secularization of society. Children became acquisitions like the SUV or pets, even given the protestation of value. If a child has infinite value, then the marginal value of another one is also infinite. When you say that you don't want as many children as practical (as health and economics will permit, not as many as possible), you are saying something else is more valuable. Two children with college degrees you help with over six who might have to work at or for it. Or you want to go with them on vacation, buy them things, and insure their four siblings will be sacrificed to provide it for the two who are permitted to exist. Molech lite is still the spirit of molech.

Looking around the world, it appears the civilizations with the most longevity are those with the following qualities...

1) live in houses made of grass and sticks2) men do little except hunt and rape the women3) no written language4) no money5) no possessions6) no knowledge of wheel7) no clothes8) no laws against screwing kids9) lots of superstitions10) no tooth decay11) no domestic animals12) ability to make fire

In other words, the intellect of the average inner city democrat.

Good thing you have number 12 in there or you wouldn't be able to call it a civilization.

The highfalutin aims of democracy, whether real or imaginary, are always assumed to be identical with its achievements. This, of course, is sheer hallucination. Not one of those aims, not even the aim of giving every adult a vote, has been realized. It has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.

In other words, any suffrage movement was really just a farce. It merely invites the dumb masses in to think they have a say. At the end of the day, they don't.

Furthermore, 76% of college educated women between the ages of 35 and 44 had children in 2010. This is a mere 12% less than women of this age that did not have a college degree.

Yeah, what's a few 50 million between spinsters?

Nice math, Tad. You are just like science: self-correcting. Even when you select the most "favorable" stat, it isn't in your favor.

Try this one instead, and follow the logic train all the way to Annihilation Junction at the End of Intelligence Depot:

All women of childbearing age, with no college, and at least one child: 88%All women of childbearing age, with degree, and at least one child: 52%

I'd draw a picture for you but it might be wiser for you to invest your intellectual capacities into watching the first 13 seconds of Idiocracy.

When nearly half of society's preferred team is a genetic dead end, and nearly 90% of the other team is fruitful, Vegas oddsmakers take it off the board. It is no contest.

I would note that you made the exact same point that I did, but didn't realize it. A 12% gap in the final stage of fertility between the two groups is plenty for those who are not mathematically deficient. I just tried to make it easier for you.

But you still haven't proven that those with no college are less fit than those with college. You are assuming that going to college indicates some sort of intelligence that would be transmitted to children via genes. What going to college nowadays means is a willingness to get into debt to party.

I shudder to contemplate the TFR of women in the West who are +3 sigmas or more from the mean on intelligence. My guess is that it is WELL below 0.5. Even women between 2 sigmas and 3 are probably in that TFR range.

But you still haven't proven that those with no college are less fit than those with college. You are assuming that going to college indicates some sort of intelligence that would be transmitted to children via genes. What going to college nowadays means is a willingness to get into debt to party.

Of course they haven't proven this, and they won't. But they'll still assume. Why they'd want to assume is of course the really interesting question. It could be because they want to take every opportunity to make the case that women should be discriminated against as in the past. Or it could be because they are just dumb. I'm betting on a combination of both.

Finally, you have to ask, do these folks believe that when societal circumstances weighed against women obtaining high salaries that more women had inferior genetic material...evidenced by the fact that few or no women possessed high salaries?

No...Now that I think about it, I'm going with the latter as an explanation.

Finally, you have to ask, do these folks believe that when societal circumstances weighed against women obtaining high salaries that more women had inferior genetic material...evidenced by the fact that few or no women possessed high salaries?

Of course not, there just was no mechanism that selects for the most intelligent females and then decreases their number of children like there is now.

Graduate or Professional degree (27.6%) vs not-H.S. graduate (13.5%), H.S. graduate (14.3%), Some College no degree (24.7%), Associate Degree (11.4%) and Bachelor's degree (18.2%). The higher the level of education, the more likely a woman is to remain childless."

Your problem is assuming that whatever unique qualities these high salaried women possessed, that was not passed on direct by them to offspring, was essential to them obtaining high salaries.

To cut to the chase, you seem to be arguing that career success arises from characteristics which are not heritable, factors like education rather than factors like intelligence, which are heritable.

So let's look at how income relates to education while controlling for intelligence. The literature in labor economics has plenty of papers like the following:

The addition of IQ into the analysis reduces the returns to education, particularly for 1992, so that there is virtually no appreciable increase in the return to education in either sector after controlling for IQ. The increasing return to education found in Table 6 is now picked up by the increasing return to IQ in the professional and service sectors.

That most definitely undermines your position. Do employers pay employees for the skills they learned in their sociology classes, their Women's Studies classes, or do they pretty much find the content of education (in most cases) useless and instead value the intelligence of the employee? We can take a gaggle of dullards and put them into college classes and fill their heads with education and these dullards won't replicate the career trajectories of their more intelligent peers. Your position here is smoke and mirrors.

Now you have to shift all of your chips to the gambit of successful career women having no decrease in fertility. You try this gambit with this sneaky wording:

Furthermore, 76% of college educated women between the ages of 35 and 44 had children in 2010. This is a mere 12% less than women of this age that did not have a college degree.

Having a child =/ having identical fertility rates between groups. The literature on this topic is so well known that I'm not going to bother supporting the claim that as women's income increases fertility decreases.

Secondly, your claim fails in that you make a false equivalence between women who attain a college degree and women who are economically successful in their careers. These are two distinct categories.

Thirdly, your statistic glosses over the demographic impact which results from an intelligent woman having only 1 child versus an average woman having 3 children. Your argument treats these two conditions as being identical. From the perspective of population level analysis this differential fertility does have an impact.

College is also not what it was in the early 20th Century when there equal number of elites attending (and the women became mothers, not company dronettes). It was also harder to get into and do lessons in colleges.

Today college is a scam, and women are more gullible. They end up with a lot of debt, a piece of paper, no useful skill. Colleges used to have standards, but I think maybe first with the GI bill (WW2 returnees), then the "my children must go to college", we had grade inflation.

I know of no skill which can be more easily obtained, often for free, and end up better between the internet, coaches, mentors, or similar sources. For some things you can even get a certification.

But even when "equality" was starting and women went into blue-collar jobs, it happened because of the "feminism".

The message was that Mothers were losers. You didn't want to be a homemaker.

That was foreclosed with the "free" trade (actually rape-US) agreements like NAFTA. We might have maintained higher wages - with higher prices, but overall better.

Tad may have a point - the qualities women possess that allow them to earn high salaries may have nothing to do with intelligence. They may be "sleeping their way to the top", relying on the ability to lobby politicians, etc. Also look which skills they have upon which they earn their high salaries. If any. Inventors? Entrepreneurs? (vanity SBA loans for women to do something like eLipstick doesn't count). But again subjective value strikes again! The only thing amiss in the "B" Ark in Hitchhiker's is that if it was by occupation, it would look like a harem.

From the last paragraph of the NYT piece:"“You know, if we had someone here with just a G.E.D. or something, I can see how they might feel slighted by the social atmosphere here,” he says. “There really is something sort of cohesive or binding about the fact that all of us went to college.”"

What a frickin' tool of a man. That you have all been to a classroom following your adolescence bears no relation to ties which bind real relationships together.

"“You know, if we had someone here with just a G.E.D. or something, I can see how they might feel slighted by the social atmosphere here,” he says. “There really is something sort of cohesive or binding about the fact that all of us went to college.”"

"You know, if we had someone here who did not have his Bar Mitzvah or something, I can see how they might feel slighted by the social atmosphere here," he says. "There really is something sort of cohesive or binding about the fact that all of us are Jewish."

Graduate or Professional degree (27.6%) vs not-H.S. graduate (13.5%), H.S. graduate (14.3%), Some College no degree (24.7%), Associate Degree (11.4%) and Bachelor's degree (18.2%). The higher the level of education, the more likely a woman is to remain childless."

Despite the fact that we have no evidence that high salaried women possess more desirable genetic material, we can still say that college graduate women are still producing children in high numbers.

So is this discussion over or are going to keep pretending that some sort of salient point was made?

It can be viewed here: http://retropundit.wordpress.com/1913/01/11/insane-big-tim-sullivan/

A number of interesting stories from that time period are on the right margin of the page.

Now then, we can only hope the same for for the liars and thieves of our time!

I suppose the Libertarian mindset might pay for extra asylums ... except one notable historical problem ... Asylum's, mental illness and the "treatment" of mental illness has been one of the mainstays of despots and tyrants worldwide. Re-education anyone? How about a physical or chemical lobotomy?

Soga: "Stupid people breed the most, because they have less inhibitions about sex and about being "frugal" about raising kids."

There are more outliers on this point than I used to presume. I've come in contact with a decent amount of large, intelligent, intact families in recent years. The tide may be shifting to some extent. I have six kids myself and an IQ in the top percent or two (and my wife is no slouch, though she's a deviation or two beneath me). As for being frugal, we're definitely that (and debt-free). I feel that it's a God-given duty for His people to have as many kids as possible, and raise them well, albeit while occasionally kicking rabbits.

I actually think the weakest, and yet most potent, force of the left is feminism. I honestly recommend a full out attack on that, politically, socially, economically. The other pillars of the fifth column would crumble without it. I doubt if even God listens to my political advice, but there it is.

Start at home. Tell your daughters, straight out, that they shouldn't vote and create little examples of why not. While the state has all but castrated the family, that is still, so far, where most children are born and raised. Use it.

And everytime rabbits have been crawling under the fence and getting into the breeding stock! ;-)

I know you are joking and see the humor. The folly of men has no bounds. There are cerian people who think they can rule, and others that just lust for power. They may live a long time, in Planks time, but all die in God's time.

It isn't easy to convince a young man of death until he walks though the graveyards of history.

For the record- women don't have to stay home and breed simply because it intimidates you that we're in the workforce. What about the fact that women may wish to work and be very capable of doing so. Are you saying women are less intelligent than men? Is there any reason that a man couldn't stay home and provide childcare if that is best suited to a family?

It does not matter what kind of society WE want. We do not get to choose (and there is not much to pick from). We have is what we are going to get, until this one fails...and fail it must, since it is unsustainable.

I suspect most here...and probably VD too....expect this one to come crashing down like an exciting action flick, with lots of gunfire, fires burning, and deserving heroes who prevail, while wading in blood. And that might happen, we can certainly all imagine it.

But I fear it may be too slow for an action movie. A death so slow it takes generations of disappointment to end. Like the end of the Holy Roman Empire, no one will be sure when it actually died. Decades of want and disease and despair, with none of the heroics or inspiration or leadership. More of a time of survivors dying off gradually of broken hearts, regret and guilt. Replaced by even fewer, who have no memory of life any other way than tenuous, brutish, and cruel. Some of the Libertarians believe they would thrive in such an environment, but I seriously doubt it. I had rather be the first to die, rather than the last.

Me too and it isn't a vison from God, but a vision from hitory, so Amen. I know where this is going and where I am. Time to fight or give up the ghost, It is up to you, what you do. This world is not mine and never belonged here but for a while. The world was made for liberals who want their living Hell. Let them have it.

For the record- women don't have to stay home and breed simply because it intimidates you that we're in the workforce. What about the fact that women may wish to work and be very capable of doing so.

Of course.

Just the other day I was at the grocery store, and was very intimidated by the female cashier in the checkout line. What should I say to her? What should I do? No sudden movements. The air was tense, thick with the sounds of babies crying, old women writing checks for seven dollar purchases of canned vegetables, and the cultural miasma wafting from the copious women's magazines at the rack near the conveyor belt. Gosh was that female cashier intimidating. Her blue vest pressed and ironed, her plastic name badge gleaming under the fluorescent lights.

When a smart young man receives a big salary it is a good thing for the race. He can marry and transmit his smartness to posterity. When a young woman receives a big salary it means disaster for the race

absolutely

the smart young man, passed-over by dint of his Horrid Maleness, ends up contributing little or nothing to the race, his places awarded to a woman who, no matter how smart, cannot be a head of a household, nor a present father to his sons

So yes, I do encourage women to go out to work - and as it turns out, an overhwelming number work in jobs they would have been doing anyway. Bed made, now lie in it. People don't pay you to self-actualise, they pay you to make money for them.

Are you saying women are less intelligent than men?

Now where did you get that from? Stick to VD's argument.

Is there any reason that a man couldn't stay home and provide childcare if that is best suited to a family?

Hey! I have some anonymous fans! I would reply but... that would be, oh I don't know, like teaching a child calculus. It never works. Too stupid to know better as they watch their nation die. Suicide is the way of women without masters, or even too many masters (which is the same thing)? Now their suicidal tendencies have infected the body politic. And it's working swimmingly.

OT, but we've had a very nice dip in precious metals over the past several days, if anyone is considering buying.

If you ain't got it it is too late. Should have bought at seven instead of twenty seven, I am nursing a dieng dog, giving him my pain pills, wondering what men think? I found out they don't either think or cry anymore. They are robots of the gamers and TV.

They have become little nothings that refuse to read or think. Thay have become Darwins little dumbasses. That is the world God through you in. He knew before he did it.

Yeah, typical leftist. Telling other people what they have to do, patting himself on the back, and notice how the cost of procuring that cookie falls onto me. You'd think that if he felt so strongly about me having a cookie that he'd pay for it, but that's not the way liberals roll - they love to roll around in the self-adulation like pigs in slop, but actually paying for their positions, nope, not gonna happen.

I watched some old Oprah episodes. I think I'm okay now. I have a new book to read from her book club too.

Ah, the old "you're intimidated by X" gambit. I don't like toxic waste and realise it's bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean one has to be intimidated by it.

I knew a 5'11" lesbian with a bad sailor haircut that intimdated me. But it was a more of "I can't feel my penis, it might be frostbite" kind of way. Her attractive girlfriend wanted me (I thought she was lesbian too, weird...). That made me a might concerned, some.

I would reply but... that would be, oh I don't know, like teaching a child calculus. It never works.

"The long enduring effort to institutionalize the family wage eventually succeeded. Robertson writes that "it has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States and by 80 percent of the major industrial companies." He adds, "Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a ‘myth" designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming reality."[4] He later states that "the family-wage economy that prevailed from 1945 to 1970 was the product of an ideal pursued deliberately, primarily by women’s organizations, through the political process...."[5]"

"For the record- women don't have to stay home and breed simply because it intimidates you that we're in the workforce. What about the fact that women may wish to work and be very capable of doing so. Are you saying women are less intelligent than men? Is there any reason that a man couldn't stay home and provide childcare if that is best suited to a family? "

Since men have to work, with or without feminism, feminism and what it entails is a point of contention amongst women themselves. It's kinda obvious which sort has won out.

Nah. Japan has a declining birthrate but that's not the same as demographic suicide. Unlike Europe, Japan's not importing foreigners en masse.

I've seen the media bitching and bitching about that. Japan has decided to turn to technology instead. And since a proportion of the Japanese Yakuza are actually of Korean descent, I don't think they are anxious to open the borders any time soon.

"While Ethnic Koreans make up only 0.5% of the Japanese population, they are a prominent part of yakuza, despite or perhaps because they suffer severe discrimination in Japanese society alongside the burakumin. In the early 1990s, 18 of 90 top bosses of Inagawa-kai were ethnic Koreans. The Japanese National Police Agency suggested Koreans composed 10% along with 70% of burakumin in Yamaguchi-gumi. Some of the representatives of the designated Bōryokudan are also. The Korean significance had been an untouchable taboo in Japan and one of the reasons that the Japanese version of Kaplan and Dubro's Yakuza (1986) had not been published until 1991 with deletion of Korean-related description such as the component of Yamaguchi-gumi."

Which is more important genetically, that intelligent women reproduce or intelligent men reproduce? If high IQ women don't reproduce, then a society with increasingly high IQ women would collapse. Thus, in the sexual free market we see high IQ women are expendable and removed from the gene pool.

...various strategies were deployed to destroy the America Family System, and a fair number of these were initially instituted as societal improvements, that is, good things carried to destructive extremes, such as women suffrage secretly desired by the PTB to get women out of their homes, away from their children so they could pay taxes, and spend money. This would allow the State to educate their children according to Fabian values which could be covertly and subtly embedded, while carefully and systematically removing references to the American Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and while continually and progressively substituting globalist value sets. Over time, much of the classical the male role was diminished and stripped of its power through Feminism which was paid for by the fortunes invested in non-profit foundations of the oil magnate John D. Rockefellor’s and the like, now protected by tax loopholes.-- Preston James, Ph.D

Thus the roles of Mommy and Daddy were degraded and morphed into the background with the public education system acting as the action arm of the state, able to usurp the powers over the children normally held by the parents. All designed to build good NWO globalist citizens of the future who had drank the mass media dispensed USG propaganda kool aid and who were expected to continue doing so throughout their whole lives.

The classical roles and authority of Mommy and daddy were destroyed and a NEW FAMILY was very craftily created. The New DADDY was to be the USG. The NEW MOMMY was to be the controlled major mass media, the official propaganda dispensers for the USG, which has become basically an habitual lie machine. The public schools have become the new CHURCH where existential values are inculcated and deposited inside the children’s minds, perhaps the best mindkontrol system ever devised and only matched by TV’s kids shows, cartoon and computer games.

So now this NEW FAMILY of the USG, the Major Mas Media, and the Public Schools is the basic organ of the system of mindkontrol designed by the SSG and is fully operational to keep Americans psychologically and emotionally conditioned to stay asleep to true American History and continue believing the BIG LIES which include the basic assumption that their substitute DADDY the USG would never lie to them or hurt them and is concerned with their best interest like any normal Daddy would be. And the same for their substitute MOMMY and substitute CHURCH. So many folks have bought the BASIC BIG LIE that their substitute Daddy, the USG, and their substitute Mommy, the major Mass Media, and their substitute Church, the Public School System WOULD NEVER LIE TO THEM and would provide for all their basic needs through their whole lives. And anyone who tries to tell them the opposite is quickly regarded as someone that just hates and is trying to disparage and destroy their NEW FAMILY SYSTEM, which form their new triune, but false godhead. So in a sense the BIG LIES of the USG are really embedded like religious beliefs, sort of a new church for the NWO. Very effective as a form of Orwellian mindkontrol utilizing the double-think.

"If anything, the phenomenon of career women is a mechanism for removing undesirable (masculine) women's traits from the gene pool. If anything."

Good point. The most 'successful' women tend to be high testosterone (competitive, aggressive, driven)...they represent about 10% of the population (guessing). The majority of women who are 'dissatisfied' with the working world tend to be more feminine (i.e. have a liberal arts degree, like to gossip, play at work and have 'feminist' views but are looking to be saved from their boring job and their crushing - and self-inflicted - debt).

Graduate or Professional degree (27.6%) vs not-H.S. graduate (13.5%), H.S. graduate (14.3%), Some College no degree (24.7%), Associate Degree (11.4%) and Bachelor's degree (18.2%). The higher the level of education, the more likely a woman is to remain childless."

Short version I came up with:

"Master's degree [for a woman] typically means having not much of a family, and a doctorate likely means no family at all."

Perfect example spelled out:

Take a woman who wishes to become a neurosurgeon. Begins college age 18. A real (hard science, say) degree commonly takes 5 years, not 4. That's age 22 best case (BC), 23 worst case (WC). It might well take her a year to get into medical school; BC now 22, WC 24. Medical school officially takes 4 years, but blowing 2 courses requires retaking an entire year; at end of med school, 26 BC, 29 WC. Residency for neurosurgery is officially 7 years. However, a surgeon friend of mine had to repeat TWO years of his residency, one from a program closing partway through, and another from the residency program he was in going pyramidal (~4x as many slots in first year than in final year). So, going by his experience, end of residency age 33 years BC, 38 WC. Now, she's got about a @250,000.00 student loan debt to pay off, and has been a poster child for deferral of gratification from probably at least age 14 on. Given starting pay of $100K or so, she's going to take at least 4 years (probably more) to pay off that debt. There's also the issue of timely finding a suitable husband (smart enough to earn enough to not flunk her hypergamy, but stupid enough to marry a woman pushing 40 while planning to start a family).